Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
J Invasive Cardiol ; 31(1): 1-9, 2019 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30611122

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The contemporary limb outcomes and costs of stent-based vs non-stent based strategies in endovascular revascularization of femoropopliteal (FP) peripheral artery disease (PAD) are not well understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: We present data from the ongoing United States multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease Registry between 2006-2016 to compare stent vs non-stent treatment outcomes and associated costs in FP interventions. A total of 2910 FP interventions were performed in 2162 patients (mean age, 66 years), comprising 1339 stent based (superficial femoral artery, 93%) in 1007 patients and 1571 non-stent interventions (superficial femoral artery, 85%) in 1155 patients. A growing trend for non-stent based interventions and a declining trend in repeat revascularization rate at 1 year were observed across years of registry enrollment. Stent implantation was the prevailing strategy in treating longer FP lesions (mean length, 152 mm vs 105 mm; P<.001) and chronic total occlusions (65% vs 40%; P<.001), while stent implantation was employed less frequently when treating in-stent restenotic lesions (14% vs 20%; P<.001). Stent and non-stent interventions had similar 1-year limb outcomes in all-cause death, target-limb revascularization, target-vessel revascularization, and major or minor amputation. The average procedure costs for the stent group were significantly higher than the non-stent group ($6215 vs $4790; P<.001). CONCLUSION: There is a growing trend for non-stent FP artery interventions, with a significant decline in 1-year target-limb revascularization rates over time. One-year limb outcomes in stent-based compared to non-stent interventions are similar; however, at a significantly higher procedural cost.


Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Procedimentos Endovasculares/métodos , Doença Arterial Periférica/terapia , Sistema de Registros , Stents/economia , Idoso , Angiografia/métodos , Procedimentos Endovasculares/economia , Procedimentos Endovasculares/instrumentação , Feminino , Artéria Femoral/patologia , Artéria Femoral/cirurgia , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde , Humanos , Canal Inguinal , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doença Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico por imagem , Artéria Poplítea/patologia , Artéria Poplítea/cirurgia , Prognóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medição de Risco , Stents/estatística & dados numéricos , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos , Grau de Desobstrução Vascular/fisiologia
2.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv ; 11(3): 225-233, 2018 02 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29413236

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The authors performed a multicenter, randomized-controlled, clinical trial comparing upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter versus antegrade wire escalation for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions. BACKGROUND: There is equipoise about the optimal initial strategy for crossing coronary chronic total occlusions. METHODS: The primary endpoints were the time required to cross the chronic total occlusion or abort the procedure and the frequency of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events. The secondary endpoints were technical and procedural success, total procedure time, fluoroscopy time required to cross and total fluoroscopy time, total air kerma radiation dose, total contrast volume, and equipment use. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2017, 246 patients were randomized to the CrossBoss catheter (n = 122) or wire escalation (n = 124) at 11 U.S. centers. The baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of the study groups were similar. Technical and procedural success were 87.8% and 84.1%, respectively, and were similar in the 2 groups. Crossing time was similar: 56 min (interquartile range: 33 to 93 min) in the CrossBoss group and 66 min (interquartile range: 36 to 105 min) in the wire escalation group (p = 0.323), as was as the incidence of procedural major adverse cardiovascular events (3.28% vs. 4.03%; p = 1.000). There were no significant differences in the secondary study endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with wire escalation, upfront use of the CrossBoss catheter for antegrade crossing of coronary chronic total occlusions was associated with similar crossing time, similar success and complication rates, and similar equipment use and cost.


Assuntos
Cateterismo Cardíaco/métodos , Oclusão Coronária/cirurgia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/métodos , Idoso , Cateterismo Cardíaco/efeitos adversos , Cateterismo Cardíaco/economia , Cateterismo Cardíaco/instrumentação , Cateteres Cardíacos , Doença Crônica , Angiografia Coronária , Oclusão Coronária/diagnóstico por imagem , Oclusão Coronária/economia , Oclusão Coronária/fisiopatologia , Feminino , Custos Hospitalares , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Duração da Cirurgia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/economia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/instrumentação , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Fatores de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos
3.
Vasc Med ; 23(1): 39-45, 2018 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29105577

RESUMO

This study compares procedural complications and clinical outcomes between subintimal crossing versus intraluminal crossing during endovascular treatment of infrainguinal peripheral artery chronic total occlusions (CTO). We identified 1335 CTO interventions in 1001 patients from the multicenter Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry from January 2005 to October 2015. Outcomes included 30-day and 12-month all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke, peripheral artery stent, or vessel, thrombosis (ST), need for any target limb endovascular or surgical revascularization, target limb major amputation and procedural complications. A subintimal crossing technique was necessary in 388 lesions (27% overall in 1335 lesions; 34% ( n=351) in 1023 femoropopliteal lesions, and 12% ( n=37) in 312 infrapopliteal lesions, p<0.01) with a lower procedural ( p<0.01) and technical ( p<0.01) success than the intraluminal in both femoropopliteal and infrapopliteal interventions. There were no significant differences in procedural complications, major adverse cardiac events, or clinically driven target limb revascularization at 1 year between the two groups, except a higher residual dissection rate in the subintimal crossing group than the intraluminal group in femoropopliteal target vessels ( p = 0.04).


Assuntos
Arteriopatias Oclusivas/terapia , Procedimentos Endovasculares , Doença Arterial Periférica/terapia , Artéria Poplítea/cirurgia , Resultado do Tratamento , Idoso , Amputação Cirúrgica/métodos , Arteriopatias Oclusivas/diagnóstico , Procedimentos Endovasculares/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doença Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA